{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Slush suggests that there is no need for a payload format like JSON or XML, and all that is required is an address in response.\n📝 Original message:In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml,\nmultipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address in\nresponse + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing\nadditional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with \"amount\",\n\"label\" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra payload\nyet.\n\nslush\n\nOn Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jordan Mack \u003cjordanmack at parhelic.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e If the idea is to \"KISS\", and provide a method that is both quick and\n\u003e easy to implement for the average developer, then JSON is a stand out\n\u003e option. Using HTTP for the data interchange will make things difficult\n\u003e for a lot of developers if multipart responses are used. JSON will be\n\u003e greeted with open arms.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111219/33ea8eb3/attachment.html\u003e"}